1.5 Evidence for the Onsite BOE Team to validate during the onsite visit:
1. Pass rates on licensure tests. What are the pass rates for programs with less than 10 completers? What differences exist between the most recent Title II report and the one available in the exhibits at the time of the Offsite Review? What official document indicates the pass rates for other school professionals?
The pass rate data for "other school professionals" was determined by taking a list of program completer names from the UT Martin commencement books and matching the names of completers with official score reports on file from ETS.
The data was aggregated for each of the programs (EDAS/Ed Leadership and Counseling-School) and the results were provided in a table in Standard I-IR Links which is located at //www.utm.edu/departments/ncate/documents/PassRatesforEducationalLeadershipandSchoolCounseling.pdf.
2. Updates on state program reports. What has the state teams learned from its review during the onsite visit?
3. Examples of rubrics and data on candidates' performance on them. How do the completed rubrics match an assignment? What type(s) of feedback are provided to candidates based on their performance on the rubrics?
Many of the teacher education program courses require candidates to complete a performance-based assessment or an assignment that requires candidates to apply, analyze, and synthesize new understandings and skills.
Rubrics or scoring checklists are often used to provide guidance to students concerning expectations for such assignments.
Upon submission of the assignment, constructive comments and feedback, along with scored rubrics or checklists, are provided to candidates.
Construction of analytic and holistic rubrics to guide students' creation of assignments as well as to provide more objective analysis and assessment of candidates' work continues to be a focus of the teacher education unit.
Candidate Work Samples
4. Response rates on the alumni and employer surveys. What are the response rates? What is the unit doing to improve response rates?
The response rates on the alumni survey conducted in 2009 were 26% (54 of 228).
The response rates on the employer satisfaction survey conducted in 2009 were 26% (41 of 153).
The response rates were up from the previous surveys.
In 2009 we contacted alumni and employers by e-mail and postcards.
For the first time, we offered the survey online through Survey Monkey.
We also offered and held a drawing for a free TV. The Dean emailed reminders to the employers. Furthermore, the first 100 alumni and employers were entered in the drawing. We're not sure if the electronic survey or the TV increased the response rate. Either way we'll try both again in January 2011 when we conduct the next round of alumni and employer satisfaction surveys.
5. Data from the Advisor Rating form. A blank Advisor Rating form is provided in the exhibit center; however no data are provided. How is the information used with candidates?
At the end of each semester, the graduate assistants who assist with advising in Education Student Services send the Advisor Rating form to all teacher education majors in the unit.
The advisees may return the form electronically to the graduate assistants or the Director of Teacher Education/Assessment or they may chose to print a hard copy, complete it, and drop it by 205 Gooch where Education Student Service is located.
The results are used to conduct advising workshops with faculty and graduate assistant advisors in order to improve unit performance.
If an advisor has ten or more completed surveys returned by candidates in one semester, then he/she receives an individual report.
Completed data follows.
6. Samples of candidates' TEP portfolios. How do candidates use the portfolios? What feedback is provided?
The TEP portfolio is the instrument by which the faculty and initial licensure candidates judge their progress while matriculating through the TEP. Initial licensure candidates begin their portfolios in their introductory courses (TCED 211, TCED 780) where they are introduced to the Conceptual Framework. The Conceptual Framework is emphasized as it forms the basis for the documentation for the candidates' work.
As students progress through courses, they continue to add components that provide evidence of their knowledge of the conceptual framework.
The primary feedback for portfolio documentation is provided by instructors who teach courses within the program; however, each candidate's faculty advisor reviews and scores the portfolio at established points, including admission to the program, admission to student teaching, and exit from student teaching.
The documents included in the portfolio are designated for each licensure area and candidates submit those documents as part of course work. The individual instructor teaching a course in which a key assessment is assigned is the evaluator for that particular document. For instance in TCED 340, post critiques of teaching in the public schools are designated as a key assessment in that course (K-6 licensure). Candidates complete their reflective critiques as required then submit these to the instructor who evaluates them. The post critiques are entered into the portfolio under Conceptual Framework section entitled "Reflective Practice: Diversity." The candidate is required to complete an explanatory caption explaining what they have learned from the experience as well as from the reflection on the experience. They must make a case for that piece demonstrating they have looked at the issues occurring in the classroom involving special education students, ELL students, gender, and racial differences. They are to reflect in their critiques how the instruction could have been differentiated for that classroom.
This serves as a sample for the advisers and faculty teaching that course that shows the candidate has more knowledge of diversity in classrooms and ideas about how to differentiate instruction. This is how the faculty and advisers determine if the candidates have learned from their coursework and field experiences.
Each part of the Conceptual Framework is incorporated into the portfolio with sub-divisions including Diversity, Assessment and Technology. The faculty believes these three sub-areas are key components of each part of the Conceptual Framework (Knowledge, Skills & Applications, Reflective Practice, and Professional & Ethical Behavior) and understanding of these must be demonstrated within each of the three main keys to the C.F.
There are nine documents required prior to student teaching. The documents were determined by the faculty. Faculty selected the key assessments they wished to see included in candidates' portfolios in each initial licensure area. The explanatory captions are an important and key piece of the assessment of the candidate portfolios as well, they enable the candidates to reflect on their experiences in public school classrooms and in their coursework. They must determine how the items show their continued growth in the TEP. At the end of student teaching, candidates are required to have a total of fifteen documents in the portfolio. These last non-designated items are chosen by the candidate and should demonstrate what they have learned in student teaching, by going to parent teacher conferences, or by attending other professional development opportunities. This gives candidates the opportunity to best express what they have learned and think important to their growth as a candidate for completion of the TEP. The portfolio serves as the comprehensive examination for the MSIL candidates and is used by the faculty to determine MSIL students level of mastery.
7. Portfolios in Educational Leadership. Since candidates are given multiple opportunities to achieve a score of "5" on portfolio elements, what is the range of attempts to complete the portfolio successfully?
The portfolio process used in the Educational Leadership (BAL) licensure option required candidates to assemble a portfolio compiled of work samples created as they progressed through the program.
The compilation was presented at the conclusion of the program and reviewed by program faculty.
While most candidates were successful on the first submission, occasionally a second submission was requested if the portfolio had missing elements or lacked evidence of the required reflection and documentation.
8. Examples of dispositions remediation plan. The IR references this plan; however, no examples are provided. How are these plans developed, implemented, and monitored?
Dispositions are assessed at identified points as candidates move through the teacher education program at The University of Tennessee at Martin.
Additionally, faculty or university supervisors may file a dispositions rubric to document any observed concern about a candidate at any time.
Given the small size of our campus, when a disposition concern surfaces, faculty typically alert the department chair and/or Director of Education Student Services to the issue.
The first response is for the faculty member and/or supervisor to address the concern directly with the student.
This typically resolves the issue, but if additional action is required, a face-to-face meeting is scheduled with the department chair, faculty and/or university supervisor, the candidate, and the Director of Education Student Services to address the issue(s).
To date, this is the strongest response that has been required to address or remediate any dispositions concern.
One of the strengths of our program is the individual attention that can be given to candidates when a concern requires attention.
In the spring 2010 semester, a principal expressed concern to the Director of Education Student Services that two student teachers were leaving the school early on multiple occasions.
A conference was scheduled with the Director, the department chair and each student to address the issue.
The conference provided an opportunity to reinforce the importance of professional dispositions, clearly communicating requests, adhering to policies, and the candidates were strongly reprimanded and reminded of their responsibility.
The dispositions issue was addressed and no further concerns noted.
Several examples of other dispositions concerns and how they were addressed are provided.
The majority of concerns have focused on academic dishonesty issues.
These have been addressed collaboratively between the Teacher Education Program, the department chair, and the Office of Student Conduct.